Campaign to Recall Judge in Stanford Sexual Assault Case Morphs into a Culture War

Judge Persky faces an uphill battle to keep his seat in what may become the state's first judicial recall in 86 years. (Illustration by Kara Brown)

On paper, the three dozen pages laying out Santa Clara County’s recall election process cram in enough jargon, flow charts and appendices to make most eyes glaze over.

Throw in one of the most high-profile sexual assault cases in California history and the #MeToo juggernaut, though, and the campaign to recall Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky has become a well-funded referendum on sexual misconduct in modern society.

Whether that’s fair—not to mention whether voters actually understand how the June 5 election to determine the fate of Persky and two potential female successors will work—is a much bigger question with implications for courts both inside and outside the county.

“It’s going to have a profound effect,” said Margaret Russell, a law professor at Santa Clara University and one of Persky’s supporters. “This is a campaign that is being talked about nationwide.”

Whether to recall Persky is just one of two questions voters will decide this spring. On the same ballot, Santa Clara County residents will be asked to pick a successor in the event that Persky is recalled—a vote that will count whether or not people support the recall.

If successful, it would mark the first recall of a California judge in 86 years.

The campaign to depose Persky is rooted in the backlash to the penalty the he imposed in the 2016 sexual assault trial of Brock Turner, a former Stanford swimmer convicted of three felony charges after two graduate students discovered Turner using his fingers to penetrate an unconscious woman near a dumpster after a frat party on campus. He faced up to a decade in state prison for the assault, but prosecutors asked for six years.

Brock Turner's mug shot.

Instead, Persky went with a probation officer’s recommendation and sentenced then-20-year-old Turner to a six-month stay in county jail, three years of supervised release and lifetime registration as a sex offender.

The outrage was immediate, but it was too late to prevent an unopposed Persky from coasting to re-election five days after the sentencing hearing.

Still, everything changed for Persky. That summer, at least 10 prospective jurors refused to take part in a misdemeanor theft trial because of his ruling in the Turner case. A week later, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, in what he called “a rare and carefully considered step” for his office, pulled the embattled judge off a sexual assault case. Finally, at Persky’s request, the courts reassigned him to the civil division.

Turner, for his part, walked out of San Jose’s Main Jail after serving half his time for good behavior. He spent the next year trying—and ultimately failing—to get a new trial, saying he was deprived of due process and that prosecutors shouldn’t have used the word “dumpster” to describe the trash bin at the scene of the crime.

The recall campaign has since devolved into a war of tweets, TV jabs, selectively edited podcast interviews, redacted emails and other forms of digital campaign warfare. In some instances, the vitriol has turned into physical intimidation, like when the pro-recall campaign in February received an envelope of white powder, or when armed protesters have periodically gathered outside Turner’s Ohio family home.

Through it all, Persky himself has issued just one public comment. Last summer, before the recall measure qualified for the ballot with more than 100,000 petition signatures in January, the judge submitted a statement to the county defending his record.

“As a prosecutor, I fought vigorously for victims,” Persky said in the statement. “When I became a judge, my role changed—I am required to consider both sides.”

At the forefront of the campaign to channel outrage about the Turner verdict into a successful recall is Stanford law professor Michele Landis Dauber, who now chairs the Committee to Recall Judge Persky. The committee has raked in more than $800,000 from Silicon Valley tech executives, women’s rights advocates and other donors in both the Bay Area and big cities like New York and Boston, Dauber said.

Among those to endorse the recall campaign are national figures like Anita Hill and U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Adding to the momentum, Dauber said, was a letter from the victim in the Turner case that went viral just months before the #MeToo movement exploded following allegations of rampant rape and sexual assault in the entertainment industry.

“After an earthquake, you can look back and see those tremors,” Dauber said. “I think the victim statement in that case was one of those tremors.”

The parallel to broader backlash against sexual assault doesn’t square, however, for some critics of the recall effort, who contend that kicking Persky off the bench for unpopular sentences would amount to judicial intimidation and represents an existential threat to independent courts.

“They’d rather have judges that respond to the mob,” said former Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell, who retired from the bench in 2001 and is now one of Persky’s most vocal supporters.

As of the latest campaign filing deadline at the end of 2017, the anti-recall committee formally known as “Retain Judge Persky—No Recall, major funding by McManis Faulkner” had raised more than $450,000. More than $250,000 was attributed to the “fair market value of attorney time” and other in-kind contributions from San Jose litigation firm McManis Faulkner. The donor list is a who’s who of the local legal community and judiciary.

“The fact that judges are more or less aligned behind their colleague is a powerful incentive for lawyers,” Dauber said. “It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing. I think the message that is sending to women in particular is extremely tone-deaf.”

Stanford law professor Michele Dauber is at the forefront of the Recall Persky campaign.

Persky’d

The furor over the future of the county’s judicial bench comes amid a wave of criminal justice changes positioned as ways to combat disparities in how poor people and people of color interact with cops and courts.

How exactly such efforts play out, though, can get complicated.

Take the six-point bail overhaul approved by the county Board of Supervisors in October, which moved to create a community bail fund and begin building new protections to keep low-income nonviolent offenders out of jail.

While it is always difficult to isolate which individuals definitively benefit from broad-based changes, among those who in February did see a steep bail reduction were San Jose twin brothers Clifford and Clinton Pappadakis. The former coaches at city schools were brought up on child pornography charges but released with zero bail payment, in lieu of the usual $25,000 bail for similar charges.

Now, Cordell says, the question is whether recalling Persky would encourage judges to dole out harsher sentences across the board, negating any sentencing or bail reforms that could help minority defendants in particular.

“The term Persky’d is now being used by judges,” Cordell said.

As in, if a judge approves a potentially controversial plea deal or shows what could be perceived as leniency toward any type of defendant, that judge, too, could be subject to recall. Recall supporters argue that such political calculus is already part of the drill in a system where judges are elected by the public, but Cordell said the precedent would erode insulation judges are historically granted compared with other elected officials such as mayors or city council members.

One complicating factor—as with many of California’s most controversial political issues, from housing to drug policy—is that both sides see themselves as progressive.

Dauber contends that the justice system is not “zero-sum,” and that mass incarceration can be overhauled while also increasing penalties for sex offenders.

Though Cordell told CBS News at the time of the Turner verdict that sentencing language deferential to the defendant was “basically code for white privilege,” she said the recall goes too far and that campaigners have distorted Persky’s record.

“Especially to women who think this is about #MeToo and white privilege; it’s not,” Cordell said. “It has been co-opted.”

The Succession Question

While the recall is contentious, whether Persky should be removed is just one of two related ballot questions voters will weigh in June. The other: who should succeed him?

“A lot of people I’ve talked to are like, ‘Oh, if he gets recalled, then you’re running?” said Superior Court judge successor candidate Angela Storey, a civil attorney with San Jose private practice Storey & Storey.

“No,” Storey said. “You remember Gray Davis?”

Storey was referring to the gubernatorial recall of Davis that simultaneously resulted in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s being elected governor of California in 2003. That may be most voters’ most recent reference point, but the state has seen three other judicial recalls.

Whether the election process will be clear to voters this time around is a top concern for the two successor candidates who filed to run ahead of an initial March 2 deadline. Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Cindy Hendrickson was the first candidate to enter the race to succeed Persky last year, and Storey waded into the contest in February.

Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Cindy Hendrickson is one of two women running to replace Judge Aaron Persky if voters approve his recall.

The most important point, both Hendrickson and Storey agree, is that whether a given voter supports the recall of Persky, their vote for a potential successor will still count if he’s ousted. In that case, the successor candidate with more votes would then take the bench seat.

“It’s all going to be on the same ballot,” Hendrickson explained. “Whether you vote for or against the recall, or whether you leave it blank, the vote for the successor still counts.”

Though Storey opposes the recall, she said her dual experience prosecuting and defending clients lends her the perspective to remain neutral as a judge. Hendrickson, meanwhile, supports the recall and touts her experience in both litigation and prosecution as qualifications that spurred her to run in a contentious environment.

“It was going to be politically fraught,” Hendrickson said. “One thing that occurred to me is that a lot of really highly qualified people are going to sit this out.”

She adds that her upbringing in an unusually diverse Virginia family with 11 children, five of them adopted, allows her to “see the world through different eyes.” Storey, meanwhile, was born and raised in Sunnyvale and said she first set her sights on becoming an attorney at age 8.

Compared with the six-figure campaign tabs quickly piling up for the pro- and anti-Persky campaign committees, spending on the succession contest is extremely modest. Hendrickson’s campaign in January disclosed just shy of $7,400 in contributions. Though Storey has not yet filed a formal campaign report, an online fundraising page on the site Crowdpac showed $3,415 contributed toward a $20,000 goal as of March 20.

Getting Personal

One of the biggest ironies in the judicial recall is that while judges themselves usually don’t say much of anything in public, the campaigns for and against Persky have gotten extremely vocal.

Both campaigns are quick to offer up reams of tweets, e-mails and speculation about the personal motivations of opponents—as long as it’s not connected back to them.

“I’m getting pummeled on social media,” Cordell said.

“There has been a shift,” Dauber agreed, from debate about the legal merits of the Turner case to attacks on the victim or other campaign personalities, like her.

In campaigning for the recall, Dauber, who received the envelope full of white powder that temporarily shut down part of the Stanford campus last month, contends that the dozens of lawyers, judges and law professors backing Persky come off as “tone-deaf” in the midst of #MeToo. The decision to hire Arizona political consultant Brian Seitchik, former state campaign director for Donald Trump, makes it worse, she said.

“They have engaged in some of the most rank victim-blaming,” Dauber said. “To be linking arms with Aaron Persky, who has hired a Trump operative and is seen by millions of women as a symbol of rape culture, is a terrible mistake for the legal profession.”

In supporting Persky, Cordell takes issue with Dauber herself. She alleges that the professor has crafted “a false narrative” advanced by the media. The use of the word “rape” in the Turner case, as opposed to charges brought for “sexual assault,” is one example, she said.

“The person who’s got this thing going is not a lawyer,” Cordell said. “She teaches at the law school, barely.”

While Dauber has not completed a bar exam to work as a practicing attorney, Northwestern University confirmed that she earned a law degree in 1998 before entering academia. Since joining the Stanford faculty in 2001, she has penned a book on social welfare, received numerous research grants and now teaches three courses.

Among the most fraught (if more legally complex) campaign issues is whether Persky’s alleged bias has been systematic enough to justify a recall, although there’s no legal requirement that it should be. The pro-recall camp led by Dauber has surfaced five other cases of alleged bias in cases of violence against women with male defendants, which the pro-Persky campaign counters with an extensive set of opposing talking points.

Persky’s lawyers—Elizabeth Pipkin and Christine Peek, of McManis Faulkner—presented those talking points before an appeals court on Tuesday in a last-ditch effort to block the recall bid. If the three-judge panel rules in his favor in a hearing set for April 3, that would force the recall campaign to refile in the and tack on $5 million in election costs.

With just over three months to go until election day, the question is how deeply into the weeds voters will dig, and who might be left to pick up the pieces if they do decide to depose Persky.

“It’s awkward,” Storey said. “If the recall succeeds, whether it’s Cindy or I or anybody else, there will probably be an adjustment period.”

Cordell concedes that it will likely be an “uphill battle” for Persky to keep his seat. If he does, he’ll have the valley’s tightly knit legal community to thank for closing ranks and saving his career.

Persky’s defenders want the judiciary to be free to make unpopular decisions for which they could otherwise face public retribution. To insulate themselves from the whims of the citizenry, however, judges must rely on the generosity of professional colleagues who plead cases before them. Independence gets reduced to a choice judges must make about which organized interests they prefer to be aligned with.

And that might be the greatest irony in a campaign where judicial “independence” has become the central refrain.

105 Comments

The voices against the recall are the voices of Santa Clara County attorneys, judges, and those that belong to the same privileged circle. Former judge LaDoris Cordell first stated Persky’s mitigating factors on the Turner case to be “code for White privilege” and also said not to know what to say about other decisions made by Persky’s in other case due to so many mistakes. Santa Clara County BAR Association is formed and run by local attorneys and judges married to others also in the same legal and privileged circle (including top attorneys and judges). The Commission for Judicial Performance has also failed to protect the public from the powerful judicial discretion poised by corruption and the conscious and unconscious biases of those behind the bench regarding gender, race, and social economic status… This is the reason for the first ever California audit on Commission for Judicial Performance:http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/08/12/first-ever-state-audit-aims-to-hold-judges-accountable/

Judge Persky Recall is the fight between the people in Santa Clara County who have been subjected to these judges’ corruption and biases and The Santa Clara County and California’s judicial corporate business! 94+ SIGNATURES FROM REGISTERED VOTERS SPEAK LOUDER THAN THE VOICES AGAINST THE RECALL!

On June 5, 2018 VOTE YES to recall judge Aaron Persky and the Santa Clara County Judicial Corporation!

What proof of corruption. The Bar has cleared him. The best legal minds in the state have cleared of malfeasance. If you want fight for change, work on the misogynistic policies and laws that not equitable or just.

Attacking Persky, rather than the criminal justice system is the equivalent of attacking a merchant, rather than the product producer.

___These are not decent women (or men); they are local-thugs, i.e., a pack of thuggish local women (or men), led by this ultra-radical extremist Ms. Michele Dauber (yeah, we are born equal; men can be thugs, so can women); They are here to mislead innocent people in a baseless Rogue Prosecution against Judge Persky; But, would any one of them have the courage to step forward and tell us a valid legal reason to support such a baseless Recall? or answer serious questions listed in this public challenge against real Anti-Humanity Crimes originated in the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case (http://alturl-dot-com/xzzs6), which is directly relevant to the fairness, justice and the living safety of people of Santa Clara County? I am sure no one, cause they are puppies manipulated by the anti-humanity powers behind the scene;
___ Aren’t they all Women’s-Rights-Rogue-Prosecutors?

Persky Recall is not about judges not granting leniency for offenders as Persky’s top cheerleader LaDoris Cordells has implied in her different interviews and other statements. It is about that leniency being accessible to all offenders not only Privileged males particularly White privileged offenders. It is about judges showing some knowledge in their sentences about the trauma sexual assault victims have to go through and anxiety, PTSD… It is about judges not giving males from low socioeconomic status heavy sentences for shoplifting while giving light or no sentences to males engaging in child porn, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases. I myself suffered from these judges and other governmental officials’ corruption while reporting a local law enforcement for child porn. This law enforcement worked for supervising judge Julia A. Emede at some pointed. He (the law enforcement) stated he was not fired thanks to this judge. Others involved were former commissioner Irwin Joseph, Phillip Pennypacker, and more. This is the entitlement of the White Power Judiciary System in Santa Clara County that has caused families particularly women and children financial, physical, and psychological harm. Even the San Jose Police Department intimidated Recall Persky Signatures’ collectors. This is an abuse of power by these judges and the San Jose Police Department. The video of the SJPD intimidation tactic is online. Recalling Persky and seeing him out of his sit will be the powerful message and tangible evidence for victims of these judges’ corruption that change has started!

VOTE YES TO RECALL judge Aaron Persky!

Shalom to all but not for Persky!!!
SHAME ON PERSKY AND THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUDICIARY!

___Ms. Cindy Hendrickson , you know what you are doing? You are colluding with this local thug Ms. Michele Dauber trying to THEFT Judge Persky of his post on lies and false accusations, plus censorship; But please remember, once a THIEF, always a THIEF;

>> On 3/15/2018 Stanford Daily Cindy Hendrickson said: “[Judges] should reflect the values of the society they serve,” Hendrickson said, “and as a judge, I will reflect the values of the society that I’m going to serve.”
___Ms. Cindy Hendrickson, as an officer of Santa Clara DA’s Office for over 22 years, how could you ignore all the real Anti-Humanity crimes coming out of the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case [Stanford Police Case Number: # IR-04-111-0335; Victim: Peter Cao; Criminal Suspect: Gabriele Scheler] in the past 13 years? Is that you who, from the inside of judicial system, colluded with fascism powers behind criminal suspect Scheler to cover up her crimes while retaliate on victims like me? Who else could it be?
___Ms. Cindy Hendrickson, How would you explain this public challenge, with your name and photo in it, to people of Santa Clara County and to the rest of the world? How could you guard the fairness, justice and the living safety of our society if you dare not face such a public challenge?

______UN-Recall Judge Persky______
“Birds of a feather, flock together” found them all in this picture originally posted on MercuryNews http://alturl.com/w2w4o
___These are not decent women (or men); they are local-thugs, i.e., a pack of thuggish local women (or men), led by this ultra-radical extremist Ms. Michele Dauber (yeah, we are born equal; men can be thugs, so can women); They are here to mislead innocent people in a baseless Rogue Prosecution against Judge Persky; But, would any one of them have the courage to step forward and tell us a valid legal reason to support such a baseless Recall? or answer serious questions listed in this public challenge against real Anti-Humanity Crimes originated in the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case (http://alturl.com/xzzs6), which is directly relevant to the fairness, justice and the living safety of people of Santa Clara County? I am sure no one, cause they are puppies manipulated by the anti-humanity powers behind the scene;
___ Aren’t they all Women’s-Rights-Rogue-Prosecutors?

>> On 3/15/2018 Stanford Daily Ms. Angela Storey Said: “As a sexual assault survivor, I found that to be very insulting,” Storey said of the comment. “Just because you oppose the recall doesn’t mean that you don’t support these women … [Being assaulted] totally derailed my life, so I understand how traumatic it can be.”
___Ms. Angela Storey, As a sexual assault survivor to the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case, and as a victim of being falsely accused by criminal suspect Gabriele Scheler on term of ‘sexual assault’ on her recanted testimony later on, I also understand how traumatic it can be to be assaulted, and how much more traumatic to be discriminated on Scheler’s falsely accusation; I suggest that you’d better urge Michele Dauber and her prop ‘Emily Doe’ to be truthful to the public in the first place; neither Michele nor ‘Emily’ is sincere, nor trustworthy; Please reference Phase 7.38.1; Ms. Angela Storey, your share the same ethics problem with them in your double-talking style;
___Ms. Angela Storey, Also if you genuinely oppose this Recall Judge Persky Campaign, you should not even thinking about taking advantage of it at all; That’s a moral issue, which you have not learnt yet;

FE0017, Your real name please___Emily Doe was not assaulted; What those two men who initially reported on scene of two drunkies having erratic behaviors on the public ground in the middle of the night did not find she was assaulted by him; that’s the sight of two drunkies having sexual behaviors, but not sexual assault behaviors; there is a difference between ‘sexual behavior’ and ‘assault’; she went unconscious because of her own mistake in binge-drinking alcohol by herself; and they had played together at the party and there was sex innuendo in her behaviors at the party; So, please don’t exaggerate the issue;

BS with your “two drunkies” term A$$! You are out of your mind! Ask Julia A Emede for my name. The judiciary knows me and the county supervisors too. I know their trashy history too. You probably know me too! Corrupted judges, you can opt for early retirement the same way Commissioner Irwin Joseph did. NO MORE BREAKS FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUDICIARY!

Umm-m… were you there to witness the “assault”? You certainly comment like you were there. Were you?

Or maybe you’re like the hospital candy-stripers who decided they knew exactly what had happened, and then they explained the details they had decided on to the putative victim—who says couldn’t remember anything about it, herself. But she repeated the stories that were told to her, by people like you.

There’s a term for what they and you are doing. It’s called: “Bearing false witness.”

>> “On March 5, 2018 On San Francisco Magazine Michele Dauber said: ‘He Failed in His Duty’ The Stanford law professor on her campaign to recall a county judge and clapping back at rape culture.”
___In the above report, as up to today, Ms. Michele Dauber had just repeated those already debunked lies in that she only emphasized women’s rights while completely ignored men’s rights in sex-related cases; She still paranoidly call it a rape out of a still questionale sexual assault case; she still dare not acknowledge misconducts by that girl ‘Emily Doe’; and she still played the race card and athelete card; and she still dare not face the challenge with the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case (http://alturl.com/xzzs6); and she still dare not acknowledge that such a Recall Judge Persky Campaign led by her had fed voters with lies, false accusations and with censorship when collect their signatures; She did talk about Brock Turner but did not mention ‘Emily Doe’ because ‘Emily Doe’ no longer allow Michele to be her representative; Most of her lies had already been busted in this message;

>> On 3/15/2018 Stanford Daily Michele Dauber said: ““Her record and experience is clearly far superior to that of Angela Storey — Cindy is just better qualified,” Dauber said in an email statement about her support for Hendrickson.”
___The above comment by Ms. Michele Dauber, who’s leading such a baseless Recall Judge Persky Campaign, clearly indicates that they did not do it for the fairness and justice of our society, but specifically projected to tip their own pick Ms.Cindy Hendrickson of a Santa Clara Deputy District Attorney; ___Michele Dauber certainly does not want her swag to be stolen by another THIEF, Ms. Angela Storey___This is another proof that there is a conspiracy between ‘Recall Judge Persky Campaign’ led by Michele Dauber and those officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Mr. Jeff Rosen who co-founded such a rogue Recall;___What a clumsy ‘Two-Clown’s Comic Show’;

What was Emily Doe misconduct A$$, being unconscious while being sexually assaulted? The pro Persky people have implied a woman who is unconscious for being intoxicated is to blame for being sexually assaulted. That is rape culture thinking! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH WITH THAT BS!

FE0017___Again, there is no ‘sexually assaulted’ thing; the medical examination had turne out that he didn’t contaminate her nor cause any injury to her; So ENOUGH with such of your exaggerated / flippant accusations!___And again, your real name, please;

So why Turner was convicted of three felony sexual crimes? Your statements are contrary even to the sex offender site regarding Turner’s sexual crimes! If you want my name do your homework. I just have to tell you, I do not fear you, those judges, any local law enforcement. They know me too. I have reported their conduct to Gov. Brown’s office different times. NO MORE BREAKS FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS SUPPORTING THEM!

___Such a Recall becomes NON-SENSE when the likes Ms. Michele Dauber in name of that insincere / dishonest girl ‘Emily Doe’ fed people with dishonest / misleading information and also with censorship when collect signatures from voters; e.g. they only told those innocent people about the 3-months-jail-time part, but didn’t mention the 3 years of probation part and that ‘he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life’ part in such a sentence by Judge Persky; They also failed to mention misconducts by that girl ‘Emily Doe’ (like she was binge-drinking alcohol, and she had played with Brock, and there was sex innuendo in her behaviors during the party; and she is not honest in her description of the incident after getting back to sober, and her victim status is still in question before her testimony could withstand public scrutiny under her real identity); No matter how many signatures they had collected, such actions from Ms. Michele Dauber in name of ‘Emily Doe’ are UN-ETHICAL and CRIMINAL by itself;___How unethical of Ms. Cindy Hendrickson of Santa Clara Deputy District Attorney and the double-talking Angela Storey to take advantage of such an rogue Recall at Judge Persky’s difficulty time;

All felons get probation and sex offenders have to register on the sex offender site. Turner was convicted of three felony sexual crimes. He is a felon and a sex offender! This needed to be changed for Turner as well? I was one of the unpaid volunteers. I would go every Friday night to collect signatures after my day job as a professional provider. People not only happily signed, they also purchased free meals for me. Some did not sign. I am sure many of the people I have served for years will VOTE YES on June 5, 2018 to recall Persky! I have clean hands before the people of my county. They know me.

___Michele Dauber, You are still playing; You still do not have the courage to acknowledge that Judge Persky is actually very lenient to that women ‘Emily Doe’ and very harsh to Brock Turner in that sentence; (See the following paragraph); You still didn’t realize that men and women are born with equal rights; if you only advocate women’s rights while ingore men’s rights ( including Brock Turner and Judge Persky’s rights) you will create a bias in sex crime cases; and with bias, there will be no justice to either men or women in sex related cases; That’s where the real problem is with you and with such a baseless Recall led by you, right?

Ms. Michele Dauber, why don’t you have the honesty to explain the following paragraph to voters of Santa Clara County when you collect their signatures?

Originally Posted on 12/17/2017 to Ms. Collen Clary of San Jose who claimed the sentence by Judge Persky is ‘miscarriage of justice’

___Ms. Colleen Clary, Judge Persky had sentenced Brock Turner for jail time, years of probation, and to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, even though he (Brock) had already been publicly demonized; In contrast, Judge Persky didn’t sentence any penalty to that insincere and dishonest girl hiding behind a PRETENTIOUS moniker ‘Emily Doe’, and didn’t even mention misconducts by that girl ‘Emily Doe’ in such a sentence which is based on the testimony coming out of her drunken memory (low credibility); And before her testimony going through public scrutiny under her real identity, Judge Persky had even granted her anonymity to protect her privacy___that’s a very lenient and very generous sentence to ‘Emily Doe’, and also actually very harsh and very tough to that poor youngman Brock Turner since it will influence the rest of his life while he didn’t actually do a life long damage to her; So, Ms. Colleen Clary, what do you mean by ‘miscarriage of justice’ in such a sentence by Judge Persky? Futher, if Judge Persky can show leniency to ‘Emily Doe’, what could prohibit him from showing some leniency to that poor youngman Brock Turner?

___Michele Dauber , such a Recall led by you for Cindy Hendrickson is built upon lies, false accusations and censorship; No matter how many signatures you had collected, such of your actions are both unethical and criminal; Whoever approved your recall would become COMPLICITS to your crimes (e.g. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Mike Wasserman / Cindy Chavez / Dave Cortese / Ken Yeager / Joe Smitian); Would you dare say no? Ms. Dauber, are you still PRETENDING the opposition of such a baseless Recall Judge Persky Campaign do not exist?

___Michele Dauber, why don’t you mention the name of your prop ‘Emily Doe’ any more? Cause that naive girl ‘Emily Doe’ had finally realized that you are using her while she can not explain herself in light of this public challenge, and that she will get into more trouble if stay tied with such a radicalized Recall led by you; Such a point is evidenced in a January 31, 2018 report on Yahoo! titled “Correction: Ex-Stanford Swimmer Rape story”, which stated at the bottom of the article that “This story has been corrected to reflect that Dauber is a family friend, not a representative, of the victim.”; So ‘Emily Doe’ had downgraded your relationship, and you can no longer represent her speaking in public; I bet ‘Emily Doe’ must have lost confidence in you, right? If ‘Emily Doe’ doesn’t hold confidence in you any longer, why should anyone else, including those 94,539 who signed up such a baseless Recall, hold confidence in you any longer? ___Further, If your prop ‘Emily Doe’s claims do not stand any longer, how could you and such a rogue Recall led by you stand any longer?

>>On PaloAltoOnline, ’She is a Heroe’ said: “Michele Dauber is a hero like it or not. The community needs more people like her, who use their knowledge to protect or help victims. She shall get an award of some kind. Hope she gets one soon.”
___A hero? Michele Dauber is a dishonest ultra-radical extremist who disguised herself as a ‘women’s rights activist’; She lives on it;
___Not only did Michele Dauber mislead all the voters who signed up such a baseless Recall, but also mislead that naive girl ‘Emily Doe’; ‘Emily Doe’ is now in a very weird position in that she had to believe in whatever the likes of Michele Dauber told her since she claimed not to have recollection of the incident, even though someone said Emily claimed it to be ‘100% non-consensual’ incident (if she didn’t remember, how so 100% sure?);‘Emily Doe’ dares not tell the public her real identity in such a public discussion; and she can not explain herself when facing such a public challenge, which makes her look very much insincere and untrustworthy; So I’d suggest this naive girl ‘Emily Doe’ to watch out! On the likes of Michele Dauber when they set her up as a prop, especially as an anonymous prop;

……………………………

___That girl ‘Emily Doe’ was playing, so was her manipulator Ms. Michele Dauber; they are playing a ‘Two-Man Comic’ show in such a baseless rogue Recall; neither Michele nor ‘Emily’ is sincere, nor trustworthy, since they deliberately ignored misconducts by themselves; Also, when they collect signatures, they only selectively tell those innocent people about the ‘3 months jail time’ part, but DID NOT HONESTLY tell them the fact that in addition to jail time, Judge Persky had also sentenced Brock Turner for 3 years of probation and to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life___Would anyone like to be FOOLED by such of their CONTEMPTIBLE DUET? Well, judge by yourselves;

___So, looking at the whole picture and considering all factors, you can’t blame it all on Brock Turner while ignore obvious misconducts by ‘Emily Doe’ and Michele Dauber; therefore, you need to stop such a ‘paranoid’, flippant and baseless accusation like ‘rape’ or ‘rapist’ or even ‘sexual assault’ any longer;

>>Nathan said on Yahoo:“And you’re a liar, because she very clearly said that it was 100% non-consensual, and multiple witnesses testified that she had repeatedly rebuffed Brock ‘The Stanford Rapist’ Turner’s advances at the party.”
___Sexual behavior itself is not a crime; You should be very cautions before convicting sexual behaviors as ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ since that will generate irreparable consequences; Before she passed out, she had played sleazily during the party and it is reported that she had played with Brock during the party, though she said she didn’t remember anything, including her interaction with him; ___If she didn’t remember, how so 100% sure?
___Before she went unconscious, they were playing at a wild party where boys and girls occasionally hookup with each other (that’s natural and a tradition, isn’t it?); there was sex innuendo in her behaviors during the party, and that was a consensual interaction which is by default a permission of having sex if she had not clearly stop it in time; but she claimed to have no recollection of that part, which means, chances are, she did not stop it in time under the influence of her self-inflicted intoxication; and thus you can’t blame it all on him; Plus her testimony is coming out of her drunken memory (low credibility; she could selectively remember / forget any part for her own advantage) and she is dishonest in her description of the incident after coming back to sober;
___That girl ‘Emily Doe’ was playing, so was her manipulator Ms. Michele Dauber; they are playing a ‘Two-Man Comic’ show in such a baseless rogue Recall; neither Michele nor ‘Emily’ is sincere, nor trustworthy, since they deliberately ignored misconducts by themselves; Also, when they collected signatures, they only selectively told those innocent people about the ‘3 months jail time’ part, but DID NOT HONESTLY tell them the fact that in addition to jail time, Judge Persky had also sentenced Brock Turner for 3 years of probation and to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life___Would anyone like to be FOOLED by such of their CONTEMPTIBLE DUET? Well, judge by yourselves;
___So, looking at the whole picture and considering all factors, you can’t blame it all on Brock Turner while ignore obvious misconducts by ‘Emily Doe’ and Michele Dauber; therefore, you need to stop such a ‘paranoid’, flippant and baseless accusation like ‘Stanford Rapist’ Turner; Actually, even the conviction of ‘sexual assault’ on him is still questionable if ‘Emily Doe’ can not explain herself under her real identity in light of this public challenge;

>>Stanford student Kate Camara told KPIX 5.“Her giving so many personal details, I could just feel the pain as she shared really, really gruesome details,”
___Don’t be naive; It is reported that ‘Emily Doe’ had played with Brock Turner during the party and there was sex innuendo in her behaviors during the party, all of which she claimed to have no recollection; Yeah, she could selectively remember or forget any part out of her drunken memory for her own advantage; And most of her pain as described in that 7200 word essay is coming from her bad experience with medical examination at the hospital, and in being embarrassed when questioned by investigators and lawyers; and it is reported that she had told her friends like ‘I am OK, everything is OK’ while at the hospital, which means she had FAKED her feelings in that 7200 word essay; You’d better urge ‘Emily Doe’ and Michele Dauber to answer this public challenge before they had any sincerity / credibility to manipulate public opinion with such a case; Do you want to be FOOLED by them?

>>Aimee6 on Yahoo!:“ @PeterCaoStrawberry Can you explain which action by Emily Doe violated the law or the rights of another human being? …”[email protected] If ‘Emily Doe’ is not honest in her testimony to charge another person (Brock Turner) whether on term of ‘sexual assault’ or ‘rape’, that’ll be a violation of the rights of another human being (Brock) in every manner; I have first hand experience of being underhandedly wrongly accused; In the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case http://alturl.com/xzzs6 , Scheler was defined as a criminal suspect after serious police investigation; but she recanted her testimony and falsely accused me at some judicial officers who still hide from me till today (namely ZZZ/YYY/VVV from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Ms. Dolores Carr in the past and now by Mr. Jeff Rosen); They have violated my rights of living for over 13 years and counting; Recently, Scheler had no choice but to agree to show me her recanted testimony and clarify the case with me with CONFRONTATION on COURT; but when I told her to ‘bring them on’, she sent me a lawyer who tells nothing but lies all of which are disproved easily; wait for their further response; … Obvious misconducts by that girl ‘Emily Doe’ were ignored (like she was binge-drinking alcohol and she had played with Brock Turner and there was sex innuendo in her behaviors during the party; and she is not honest in her description of the incident … and her victim status is still in question before her testimony could withstand public scrutiny under her real identity;)

To all of those 94,539 who had signed up such a BASELESS Recall Judge Persky Campaign, to Santa Clara DA’s Office, to Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and also to the Sixth District Court of Appeal: Justices Franklin Elia and Adrienne M. Grover, and retired Justice Wendy Clark Duffy,

The real problems in all these mess are coming directly from the judicial system, some PRETENTIOUS and COWARDICE judicial officers (Could be Ms. Cindy Hendrickson) from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Mr. Jeff Rosen, originated in their miscarriage of justice in both (1) the much-hyped Brock Turner-Emily Doe’s case and (2) the much-heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case (ATTACHED 7), but not from Brock Turner nor Judge Persky;

When you talk about Stanford Campus Atrocity Case, you got to also give a fair reference to the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case [Stanford police case number: IR #04-111-0335; Victim: Peter Cao; Criminal Suspect: Gabriele Scheler]? It is a case in which a female had repeatedly and sexually assaulted a male; and the female criminal suspect had recanted her testimony later on and falsely accused the male victim on term of ‘sexual assault’ in order to escape from facing lawful consequences while retaliating on victims; While my statements are filled with real substance which can withstand public scrutiny, Scheler’s case was suppressed by the same set of officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Mr. Jeff Rosen who are over blowing Brock Turner-Emily Doe’s case;___ So, as a victim of over 13 years, I have first hand experience talking about Stanford Campus Atrocity Case, and I know where the problem is and I’d be glad to share it with you;

Haven’t you all realized that it is officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Ms. Dolores Carr / Mr. Jeff Rosen who are manipulating? In Scheler’s case such officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office had failed their lawful duty to clarify the case, failed to protect victims and failed to bring those fascists behind criminal suspect Scheler to justice; Even worse, such officers had even colluded with those fascists on side the criminal suspect Gabriele Scheler to retaliate on victims; Also it is Santa Clara DA Mr. Jeff Rosen who had co-founded (with Michele Dauber) this PHONY ‘Recall Judge Persky Campaign’, while one of the Santa Clara Deputy District Attorneys, Ms. Cindy Hendrickson, is waiting in line to take advantage of such a Rogue Recall; But I bet even Cindy can not present to us a valid legal reason to backup such a Rogue Prosecution against Judge Persky, either; Also worthy of mentioning is that during the hype of Brock Turner – Emily Doe’s case in 2006, Mr. Jeff Rosen had tried to play as a hero out of this case (though he remains a COWARD in Scheler’s case), and at the same time he had attempted at the post of California Attorney General after Ms. Kamala Harris left the vacancy, though he failed;

___So in both cases, it is Officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office, who are manipulating (they manipulatively suppressed Gabriele Scheler’s case while over-blowing Brock Turner-Emily Doe’s case); and their practice had greatly endangered the fairness and justice and the living safety of our society; by doing so, those officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Ms. Dolores Carr / Mr. Jeff Rosen had turned themselves into the real menace to our society; ___isn’t that a fact now?

>>Ms. Dauber said: “The recall is a constitutional right of voters. It’s a feature, not a bug, of our system,”
___The constitutional rights request the campaigners like you to be honest to the voters in the first place;
___Michele Dauber, such a Recall led by you in name of ‘Emily Doe’ for Cindy Hendrickson is built upon lies, false accusations and censorship (e.g. when you collect their signatures, you only tell voters the ‘three-months-jail-time part, but didn’t mention the 3 years of probation for Brock and for him to register as ‘sex offender’ for the rest of his life part in Judge Persky’s sentence; Also you failed to mention that such a sentence by Judge Persky is within guidelines and on recommendation by women probation officers;)___No matter how many signatures you had collected, such of your actions are both unethical and criminal; Whoever approved your recall would become COMPLICITS to your crimes (e.g. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Mike Wasserman / Cindy Chavez / Dave Cortese / Ken Yeager / Joe Smitian); Would you dare say no? Ms. Dauber, are you still PRETENDING the public can be fooled by such of your dishonest actions?

>>Ms. Dauber said: “Our campaign is extremely carefully messaged and aimed at high-status white college athletes who have committed violence against women,…”
___’high-status white college athletes’? Hasn’t that naive girl ‘Emily Doe’ also played such a ‘rich white male’ card for her own advantage to gain public sympathy and to manipulate public opinion?
___However, everyone deserves to be protected by the laws, even if you call him as ‘rich white male’ or ‘high-status white college athletes’; Brock Turner was publicly demonized in an over-blown incident in which both parties involved should be responsible for their behaviors, either sober or drunk; however, only he was blamed while obvious misconducts by that girl ‘Emily Doe’ were ignored; And ‘Emily Doe’ was granted anonymity while Brock’s privacy was totally exposed in such a publicly discussed case; In addition to jail time, Judge Persky had also sentenced Brock for 3 years of probation and to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, which is very harsh and very tough to a young man of his age because it will molest the rest of his life in a long time to go; In contrast, Judge Persky didn’t sentence any penalty to that insincere / dishonest girl ‘Emily Doe’; he didn’t even mention misconducts by ‘Emily Doe’ in such a sentence___Where is his privilege?

>>”The attorney general (Mr. Xavier Cecerra) argues that Turner’s honesty was not relevant to the crimes he was accused of, compared to a person charged with bribery or theft, for example.”
___If Mr. Xavier Cecerra rule out the ‘honesty’ as a key factor in a criminal case, how can we believe that there is any honesty in his own personality? how could he explain to the public those insincere / dishonest behaviors from both Michele Dauber and her prop ‘Emily Doe’ in such a baseless Recall Judge Persky Campaign? Where does the morality for Michele Dauber or her prop ‘Emily Doe’ stand? Hasn’t Mr. Cecerra realized that ‘Emily Doe’ had lied in her 7200 word essay designed to gain public sympathy? Hasn’t Mr. Cecerra realized that ‘Emily Doe’s victim status is still in question before her testimony could withstand public scrutiny under her real identity? Now with such a dishonest statement in the above, Mr. Xavier Cecerra can be termed with the likes of Michele Dauber / ‘Emily Doe’ as ‘Birds of a feather’; That’s yet another proof that Mr. Xavier Becerra does not have necessary quality to serve as Attorney General of California;

>>”the attorney general (Mr. Xavier Cecerra) argued, from the graduate students’ eyewitness testimony to the results of a Sexual Assault Response Team exam, a medical exam administered following a potential sexual assault.”
___Those two eye witnesses didn’t have professional knowledge about criminal cases; they didn’t know what had happened before; they didn’t know that that girl went unconscious because of her own mistake in binge-drinking alcohol by herself at home and at the frat party; they didn’t know that she had played with him and there was sex innuendo in her behaviors during the party; So we can’t judge the whole case only on those two eye witnesses; Sexual Assault Response Team exam found out that he didn’t contaminate her nor cause any injury to her; which does not warrant ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’;

Such a Recall should not exist in the first place; Who wants the fairness, justice and the living safety of our society to be manipulated by some radicalized local thugs who fed voters with lies, false accusations and censorship while dare not answer such a public challenge full of facts which can withstand public scrutiny?

It has been an honor and a privilege to volunteer for the recall Aaron Persky campaign. Persky has proven time and time again that sexual assault, domestic violence and child and infant pornography are acceptable in Santa Clara County. By not seriously enforcing these violent crimes, he is sending the message loud and clear that women and girls do not deserve the same rights and respect as privileged white male athletes. If, heaven forbid, I had been Emily Doe, I sure as hell would not want Aaron Persky presiding over my case. If it had been you, your daughter, your sister, or your mother, would you? Please join me in voting yes to recall judge Aaron Persky on June 5th.

Laura, like Michele Dauber, you have just repeated some already debunked lies in that you only emphasized women’s rights while completely ignored men’s rights in sex-related cases; You still play the race card, the gender card and the athlete card, you still dare not acknowledge misconducts by Recall leader Michele Dauber and her prop ‘Emily Doe’; and you still dare not face the challenge with the much heavier Gabriele Scheler’s Stanford Campus Atrocity Case; and you still dare not acknowledge that such a Recall Judge Persky Campaign led by her had fed voters with lies, false accusations and with censorship which had violate the constitutional rights of every voters who are affected;

Peter Cao, it is true there may be a proportion of women that will engage in falsely accusing males of crimes. This is similar to males blaming their victims. You accusing all these women of being local thugs and so on only shows your biases and ignorance. You won’t gain supporters with those unsupported accusations. I have lived in Santa Clara County for 26 years. I have provided services to many children and families even in their own homes. When you accuse Recall Persky’s supporters of local thugs, this and that, you are adding support to the lack of equality women face every single day. You need to provide evidence for your accusations. If not, they will hurt your case not support it! The reason this recall is being successful is because its advocates are local women people in the community know well. These are local women with local families, children, relatives, clients, and students; these are local mothers, daughters, and grandmothers.

I have real life experience of being assaulted on Stanford Campus and then falsely accused and then systematically retaliated for over 13 years, which you don’t have; I know better than you do where the problem is in such a situation;

Thinking you know something others do not is a fallacy. Retaliation is typically the defense of weak individuals that found themselves in a very difficult situation. Blaming victim is also another defense of the weak. I have not been sexually assaulted or accused of that. I work with those that have been in that situation. You are also falsely accusing others you not even know. You cannot ask for a justice you do not give to others.

If my kid was Emily Doe, I would tell her to acknowledge how her binge drinking makes her vulnerable to doing things she later regrets – or regrets being caught at- there is no way to know for sure which – and she ought to tell the truth about that to herself, and the truth about the “rape” to the public.

If Brock Turner was my son, I would tell him binge drinking and his sexual predatory trait would not excuse him from sexually assaulting a woman who is unconscious due to being intoxicated, medical condition, or other reason. Binge drinking per se is not a crime; sexual assault it is a crime!

…didn’t think so. But your mind is made up and closed tight. Because you just know what went down, as if you were there.

Even the so-called “victim” claims total 100% amnesia. But that’s A-OK, the gals at the hospital filled her in, chapter and verse, on exactly what happened since they were ther… Oh, wait…

But we do know the happy couple was seen leaving the party together, giggling and making calf eyes at each other, and both were very conscious. It takes two to tango, and tuth be told they’d likely have tangoed plenty, except some folks stumbled on them in the clutch, next to the dumpster. And I suppose it’s possible that embarassment + alcohol could trigger ‘amnesia’.

So who’s the real victim here? Seems to me there are two victims—and they’re both men. How about that?

Women are equal, so take equal responsibility; Victim #1 did. And Victim #2 went by the recommendation of the Board, instead of what the torches and pitchforks crowd demanded.

If the haters get their way, it’s likely that both victims will land on their feet: Victim #2 will easily get employment, and at much greater pay and benefits than what a judge gets. And Victim #1’s daddy is rich, so he’s set.

And the harridan crowd? When it’s over, they’ll still have their hatred to nurse.

Aaron Persky is a man who is clearly not able to understand the issues in front of him. And public office means exactly that, “public office”. Which means, regardless of which branch of the government you serve in, you need to serve the “public”.

If the public feels it is not served, it ought to be able to help you find other avenues of employment more suited to your limited abilities.

Should Persky’s recall give other judges pause when considering cases? If you are a judge, and you are even wavering on the answer, you are not fit to be a judge. Same goes for Santa Clara University Law Professors, who side with Persky.

> Should Persky’s recall give other judges pause when considering cases? If you are a judge, and you are even wavering on the answer, you are not fit to be a judge. Same goes for Santa Clara University Law Professors, who side with Persky.

Exactly the point made by Steve White.

It’s all about the Soros mob’s bullying and intimidating local judges and district attorneys.

The rule of law is meaningless when it is contrary to public policy. The women of Santa Clara County will not allow for our daughters, sisters, mothers, and children to be sexually assaulted, raped, physically abused and for their aggressors getting a joke of sentence! The women of Santa Clara County will not allow males to be the market of sex trafficking and child porn and receiving none or a joke of a sentence for that! The Santa Clara County judiciary has failed in protecting women, children, and the community as a whole. There will be no more breaks for crooks even if they are rich guys! This is not a movement; it is a systemic change that is meant to stay WHATEVER IT TAKES!

I am a woman with bigger [email protected] than yours. At one point of your conception, you were inside the same [email protected]! I am sure you are the result of a woman’s labor not the result of the holy spirit A$$!

FYI, I am heterosexual. There is line of guys waiting to have a date with me. Honestly, I have more fun spending a day with a book than with a guy. Most guys belong to the same club you do, small [email protected] and brain! Plus, I already have children; that part of my life has already been fulfilled. I have much more important life goals to achieve than thinking about guys such as volunteering to recall judge Persky!

Excellent post SJOTB. Some background on these people should be publicized – the Recall Persky campaign actually had some very shady people on it – people who run Trojan House initiative campaigns for example.

Your are helpless, this is not microaggression. This is clear aggression. Nature was not merciful to you! Brain replacement procedure is not available to this day! Most guys face this small equipment issue after age 50. Some have this issue due to other reasons. Please share your story!

> This is another proof that there is a conspiracy between ‘Recall Judge Persky Campaign’ led by Michele Dauber and those officers from Santa Clara DA’s Office led by Mr. Jeff Rosen who co-founded such a rogue Recall;

Peter Cao is absolutely correct: it IS a conspiracy . . . and a very BIG conspiracy:

“Progressive groups investing in district attorney races as path to criminal justice reform”

The Persky recall is REALLY about reshaping the local judiciary and district attorney’s office. It is a “global” effort involving “progressive activists” all over the map, not to mention $50 million George Soros bucks.

“The ACLU is among a variety of organizations working to elect prosecutors willing to jumpstart a laundry list of criminal justice reforms, including an overhaul of the pretrial bail bond system. It received a $50 million grant from Soros’ Open Society Foundations in 2014.”

The “Persky Recall” is more accurately described as the Soros ratpack boring from within.

The debate is not advanced by name calling.
At issue is the independence of the judiciary.
The Judge issued a legal sentence based upon the facts, the probation report and the ghost written impact statement. Read the documents. Be informed.
Also, men can be and are sexually assaulted. Do not forget about them!

Judicial Independence cannot be a reliable measure of equality and justice to all victims and offenders if those contributing to judges’ causes and other interest are the same attorneys defending cases in these judges’ court rooms. This is called CONFLICT OF INTEREST! I do not believe in this unreliable measure of “JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.”

“The ACLU is among a variety of organizations working to elect prosecutors willing to jumpstart a laundry list of criminal justice reforms, including an overhaul of the pretrial bail bond system. It received a $50 million grant from Soros’ Open Society Foundations in 2014.”

I think it’s important for people to consider this Brock Turner outrage may have been a planned event.
Both Professor Dauber and the prosecutor Alaleh Kianerci knew the probation officer would be calling “Emily Doe” to ask what she thought Turner’s sentence should be – but neither of them thought to tell Doe that, apparently -even though Kianerci was of course writing up her own sentencing memo for the judge, and Dauber was writing her own letter.
I think Dauber and Kianerci made a point of not telling Emily Doe – or it is possible she was in on it – to make her wishes clear to the Probation Officer – because they wanted Doe to be OK with a lenient sentence, tell that to the officer, have the officer write up a lenient recommendation -then have Doe to court and basically say Persky was victimizing her – so that Dauber had a poster child for the movement to recall Persky.
My evidence for this;

1 Not one word has ever been said to criticize Probation – if the sentence was so horrible, why not reform there?

2. Dauber admitted “seeing” Emily Doe’s famous speech before she went to court and gave it-She probably helped write it.

3. Dauber has admitted sending the Emily Doe speech all around the world because “the world needed to hear it” RIGHT AFTER IT WAS READ IN COURT.
In other words Dauber got a copy of it – almost certainly ALSO before it was read in court. And sent it out to huge numbers of outlets. The statement did not “go viral” it was germ warfare by Michele Dauber.

This not a trivial point – it was necessary to get the statement out, where Doe spoke, according to many, “eloquently” , so that any misleading details in the statement – the false claim Turner had stuffed “pine needles and debris” into her vagina was the biggest one. This was a complete fiction, designed to remove any doubt Doe consented to sex with Turner – a drunk girl might consent to sex – but who consents to having pine needles and dirt pushed into her vagina? And of course the lie was also designed to create huge outrage – he case had been reported as the Stanford RAPE case -because the prosecutor kept rape charges she knew were not true pending – and so, the uninformed public said “Six Months for Rape? That judge out to be fired'” – but it was even better that Doe claimed dirt and pine needles pushed in her by Turner – then we heard people talking about a BRUTAL rape – but it’s totally false. SHE MADE IT UP.

If the news media actually had to retrieve, from the court reporter, the statement on their own- individually = they would not be in a frenzy to get it out and would read it for accuracy – but as a Press Release that everyone else was getting, the push was just to publish it- so, it got published without any fact checking – and, after it was released and everyone empathized with Emily Doe- to fact check it would have been yet another “revictimizing” of her – and so, as far as I can find in the media – NO ONE – NOT ONE REPORTER IN ONE ARTICLE – has pointed out the falsities in it.

Worse yet, massive numbers of politicians and public officials jumped on the bandwagon, endorsing the truth of it- Jeff Rosen, Santa Clara DA, who is against the recall, nonetheless said “Emily Doe’ was “eloquent and truthful” in her statement – but he knows she lied about the pine needles, as part of a planned false narrative. But he’s afraid of these extremists so, he’s going to try to placate them – and at the same time placate the judges by being against it.

4. Persky’s record is not at all as Recall Persky has claimed. He followed probation recommendations all the time – something Kianerci certainly knew as a prosecutor, making the idea she forgot to tell Doe totally implausible – but anyway, since he did the same thing many other judges do, why recall him? Precisely – he is not being recalled for what he did -not at all – the plan was to recall ANY judge they could/

The point of al this is, they planned the recall precisely to scare all other judges into complying with feminist demands – destroying judicial independence is not some unfortunate possible side effect of the recall, it’s the WHOLE POINT – the entire reason for the recall is to scare all judges into siding with women – it’s not just about sexual assault – Dauber explicitly said in one interview it was about “divorce, child custody, other issues women care about” /

In other words, this is a power grab, an attempt to control the courts.

The whole point of the recall is to make sure judges are aware women and children are not sexual slaves that rich guys in this county can sexually molest, assault, or rape and receive minimal sentences. It is about making sure judges receive the necessary training and education about violence against women and children. The courts have been out of control by judges that protect law enforcement who engage in child porn watch and domestic violence. It is about balancing their power to control San Jose Police Department, Sheriff Department, and others with their powerful and corrupted judicial corporate business! Judges protect law enforcement agencies and law enforcement protect and serve judges!

English is very difficult and my writing was not perfect. I am sorry. My basic belief is this was planned by Dauber. I think she planned to generate outrage by making “Emily Doe’ a victim of PERSKY – the system – not of Turner.

In addition to ensuring the case was misrepresented, the Stanford Professor has made a point of spreading the false believe the Turner family is wealthy – this is done so that class hostility will be against Turner and therefore against Persky.

The fact is, the Turner’s have a nice upper class house near Dayton – the kind you get when both parents study and and work hard for decades- valued about $300K, whereas, the “Emily Doe” family home in Palo Alto is valued right around $3M – and her boyfriend, the one she called from the party, allegedly- he is RICH – or his Dad is anyway- being the President of Infoseek when it was bought out by Disney for $1B – yes, with a “B”.

The boyfriend went to all private schools – though he lived places on expects the public schools are pretty darn good. So, it ought to be irrelevant but it’s not, but the whole narrative of arrogant rich boy vs. poor non-Stanford girl is total BS from the beginning.

Judge Persky followed the laws and the female probation officer’s recommendations. The laws have since been changed, and Judge Persky has been cleared of any wrongdoing by multiple agencies. Therefore, there is no sound reason to recall Judge Persky.

The recall will (1) result in offenders, who are mostly brown and black, receiving harsher sentences due to judges shying away from judicial discretion, and (2) further imperil California’s already crowded jails while the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

If the role of a judge is to simply follow male/female probation officer’s recommendations why do we judges and a jury? The purpose of recall in not to increase sentence time to males from lower socioeconomic status and other ethnic groups who are already the members of current California crowded jails population. The purpose is to ensure privileged males receive the same sentence being given to non-privileged males. Currently, males from lower socioeconomic status stay in jail waiting for their trial longer than Turner did. They typically receive heavy sentences even when some of these males suffer from mental conditions (these are indeed mitigating factors). They come from families who not even have $20 dollars to give to their love ones, so that these males can buy essential needs in jail. I have myself have to find the means for these people have the monetary resources to provide to their love ones in jail.
Maria, you are late to the discussion Chica! No manches actualizate! The recall is not asking for shoplifters to spend a year in jail while privileged males spend three months in jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, four days in jail for watching children being sexually assaulted and rape (child porn), and a weekend in jail for physically assaulting their female or male partners. The recall Persky is proposing the contrary to this nonsense SANTA CLARA COUNTY WHITE JUSTICE!

I see that FE0017 is now calling another female commenter an insulting name, for simply having a different opinion. That’s what hatred will do to a person.

There is no doubt in my mind that if every voter read FE’s comments here, Judge Persky would have an avalanche of support. The sad thing is seeing FE’s mindless hatred being exhibited in a public forum like this.

Here’s something that FE has ignored:

Judge Persky followed the specific, written guidelines by the probation report in this case, and he ruled within the parameters in the California Penal Code.

Furthermore,studies have shown repeatedly that recalls, even when unsuccessful, invariably result in judges handing out much harsher sentences to “people of color”, and to the indigent—which directly contradicts Ms FE0017’s false claim that she is in their corner. She’s not.

Obviously, FE0017 has no problem with the fact that her actions will result in the “people of color” she claims to support being incarcerated for much longer because of her and her obsessed ilk.

But they could not have picked a worse crusade. If their tantrum is successful, people will point at these harridans in the future, who did their worst to destroy an innocent man (although Persky will probably land on his feet, by accepting a much higher paying job with a local law firm), and it is they who will look bad, it won’t be Judge Persky.

Last August the San Francisco Chronicle published an editorial on this recall effort. It’s short, and to the point. Compare the Chronicle’s level-headed reasoning with the wild-eyed torches and pitchforks hate-fest being exhibited by the Persky haters:

And this is the statement in support of Judge Persky by dozens of Law Professors. They are professional men and women who understand this situation far better than the hormone addled rabble here, who are out to get the judge:

I belong to a very large family with members from different ethnic groups, Blacks, White, Navite, Italian, Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese…these are my nieces and nephews. I am well aware of the discrimination minority individuals go through in a single day. My clients are also from all these groups. The justice system as it is has been a disservice for people of color and women. This has to change! Persky out of his sit will be the first tangible evidence of change!

I do not care if Maria is Maria, Mary, or Mario, she is repeating the same ignorant recital you and the other males here are repeating, blaming victim, justifying Turner and Persky’s actions; BS with Maria and all of you!

It is my style and personality that allow me to gain followers. I speak the language of the people I encountered when collecting my signatures!

Are recall campaigns governed by the same campaign funding laws that govern other elections?

Does a recall campaign have to file campaign financial reports?

The Persky Recall operation seems to be a political project of the “non-profit” ACLU and “non-profit” Stanford University Law School.

Are these organizations required to report money they raise and spend on political campaigns?

If Stanford University Law School is paying Professor-courtesy-of-sociology Michele Landis Dauber a salary while she is waging the recall campaign, is Stanford making and illiegal “in-kind” political contribution?

ACLU is not part or it or Stanrape! Stanford is actually against it. Isn’t Persky’s top cheerleader LaDoris at the top of the Stanford law school or something? The Persky Recall is by and for local women.

94,000 plus signatures of registered voters is not a representation of mob’s law but democracy. Questioning authority is not equal to subordination. Questioning authority demonstrates independent thinking and subjective freedom; democratic republics foster questioning authority in the face of violation and lack of justice. Dictatorship republics and institutions foster and enforce blind obedience and respect for authority. The result of dictatorship is unfairness and richness and power in the hands of few. In the United States, the laws are made by the people and for the protection of the people. The Santa Clara County Judiciary became a dictatorship and judicial corporate business where the judges and the legal community are the only ones that benefit with their settlement system at the expense and suffering of Women and Children and the whole community. Males are also physically and sexually assaulted. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

“Tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) refers to an inherent weakness of direct democracy and majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his famous 1859 book On Liberty.”

It [“Tyranny of the majority”] was also used by Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), where he said that “The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny.”

“The episode is one of Colonial America’s most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process.”

—————————

Call me an idealist, but I think the people of Salem, Massachusetts would have been better off with constitutional rights and an independent judiciary.

Only LaDoris and few senseless guys are buying the harm to minorities rational. I believe you are one of those racists pretending to be pro-minorities. Aren’t you the one that asked if you deserve any rights since you belong to a small family all from a single ethnic group? People are not buying the judicial independence benefitting “people of color.” On the Contrary, this judicial independence has caused harm minorities and even Whites from low socioeconomic status. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Don’t Judge Persky Decision, or Any Sentence, in a Vacuum
Aram James • Silicon Valley De-Bug • July 28, 2016

3

Before retiring as a public defender, Aram James handled thousands of probation violations. In his essay, he writes that to fully evaluate Judge Persky’s sentence of Brock Turner, the public needs to account for what being on probation really means to those convicted of a crime.

Former Stanford student and potential Olympic swimmer Brock Turner, a 19-year-old freshman at the time of this incident, was convicted in March of three felonies: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person, and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. The victim was a 22-year-old female college graduate, from another university, who attended the same alcohol-fueled Stanford fraternity party as Turner.

On June 2nd, Judge Aaron Persky of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, the same judge who presided over the trial, and after reviewing and considering a very detailed probation report prepared by a senior female member of the Santa Clara County Probation Department — including statements from the victim and defendant, and numerous letters attesting to Turner’s good character — sentenced Turner to six months in the county jail, with three years of formal probation. The sentence imposed was entirely consistent with the probation officer’s recommendation. Turner had no prior record.

The perceived leniency of Persky’s sentence set off a near public lynching of both the defendant Turner and Persky. A media and social media lynching that were witnessed by the entire nation. Calls for Persky to resign or face a recall election over the case continue to this day.

What is often overlooked when the public hears about the terms of a sentence, is the gravity of probation, and how perilously close a violation could be, which triggers a lengthy prison comittment.

Before retiring as a career public defender I handled hundreds, if not thousands, of felony probation violations. I can attest to the fact that young offenders, closely supervised on felony probation, frequently fail to make it through formal probation unscathed.

The numerous potential pitfalls of formal probation are an important reason why the six-month initial county jail sentence cannot be viewed in a vacuum. To understand the severity of the punishment, one must understand the part probation plays in the overall sentencing scheme.

Defendants, who may have initially received what appears to be a light sentence for a serious crime, often end up serving some, if not all, of the maximum prison time they could have received at the time of the original sentencing.

In Turner’s case, this means if he violates probation he could well end up serving a prison sentence of three to 10 years, or more — hardly a slap on the hand.

Given the infamous cause celeb status that this case has achieved, Turner is now one of the most reviled defendants in American. He will undoubtedly be closely scrutinized on probation. Turner will be on a very short leash.

A defendant on probation is spared prison only so long as he agrees to severe limits on his freedom. The terms and conditions of probation define the quality and limits of a defendant’s freedom.

Even a minor violation — e.g., failure to report to your probation officer, even on one occasion, or a one-time violation of a no drug or alcohol condition — can result in the revocation of probation and imposition of a previously suspended prison sentence.

So what does three years of formal probation really mean in the context of the Brock Turner case? Based on the nature of Turner’s convictions, the terms and conditions of his probation are multiple, complex, restrictive and appropriately oppressive.

As an example, while on probation, Turner was ordered by Persky to participate in and complete an approved sex offender program, of not less than one year, and up to the entire three-year term of his probation. His failure to complete this program, or for that matter any other program ordered by the court, would trigger a revocation and a potential prison sentence.

As part of the sex offender program, Turner will be required to submit to polygraph exams to monitor and ensure compliance with the program.

As a further public safety measure, Turner will be required to waive his psychotherapist-patient privilege, allowing his therapist to speak directly to Turner’s probation officer re his progress or lack thereof.

Turner must register annually as a sex offender for life, and each time he changes his residence. He must reregister within a few days of moving. Failure to register in a timely manner would be both a new crime, allowing for the potential of new charges and a separate prison sentence, and a violation of his current probation.

Turner must submit to drug and alcohol testing to ensure he is complying with the terms of his probation, that he not consume alcohol or drugs, or frequent places where alcohol is sold or consumed as a primary business.

He must waive his Fourth Amendment rights, to be free of illegal and warrantless searches, and thus submit to random searches and seizure of his person, vehicle and place of residence, at any time.

Upon an alleged violation of probation, Turner, would be returned to court to face a hearing. Unlike with a new offense, there is no right to a jury trial when charged with a probation violation. A judge sitting alone hears the matter.

To find a violation the judge need only determine that the evidence proves the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required at a jury trial.

If the judge, after hearing evidence of the alleged violation, concludes that Turner has in fact violated his probation, the judge can then sentence him to the maximum sentence, he faced at the time of the original sentencing.

In my experience, judges assigned to hear probation violations are some of the most putative jurists on the bench. Need I say, that given the media attention and wave of vitriol directed at Tuner, he will be the closest watched probationer in America.

Given the dizzying probationary maze faced by Turner, it is hard to quarrel with Persky’s initial sentence.

As a society ruined by the scorch of over incarceration, it is critical that we have judges who have the discretion to encourage a rehabilitative model-first approach, while at the same time imposing severe conditions of probation that maximize public safety and protect us from truly violent predators.

The sentence in the Turner case more than adequately balances both the public safety and the rehabilitative purposes of probation.

Many of the same progressive voices who have spoken out long and passionately against over incarceration, mass incarceration, the disproportionate sentences imposed on the poor and people of color, are now doing an about face in the Turner case.

They are shouting out that more of the same cruelty and barbarism should have been handed down in the Turner case. The same mentality that has brought us to our current failed state of mass incarceration.

Instead of blindly demanding that a white male elite be sentenced to prison for his first offense, the better logic is to demand the same measure of justice and mercy, for similarly situated defendants of color and the poor. We must look to rehabilitation and restorative justice first, and harsh and unforgiving prison sentences, only where absolutely necessary.

The vengeful model of sentencing has proven over and over again to lead to recidivism, overcrowded prisons, and little or no true comfort or safety, for the victims.

We should support Persky’s rehabilitation-motivated sentence, as an extension of the progressive movement’s call, for an end to our country’s failed mass incarceration polices.

(A version of this article was originally published in the Daily Journal.)

Related Media:
How Our Limited Options for “Justice” Around the Brock Turner Sentence Only Punishes Communities of Color

Stanford Law School Graduates Submit Letter to Reconside Recall Effort of Judge Persky

Bail or Die: The Choice of a Detained Man in a Broken Jail

About Aram James
Aram James is a former public defender and is a co-founder of the Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project.
This article is part of the categories: Community / Economy / Law & Justice / Politics
This article is part of the tags: Brock Turner / Judge Persky / judicial independence / mass incarceration / probation / probation violation / Stanford
Comments
Word.
By Kieth Gomz • July 28, 2016, 3:34 p.m.
Mr. James’ cogent article has truly made me reconsider. I originally thought Brock Turner got off too easy. I now see how hard a set of requirements he has.
His life has truly gone from one of a carefree student athlete to one of a criminal on the run. He has to watch his every step in several categories as ably explained by Mr. James. He is no longer able to live as selfish and carefree a life as he did before. He has to look over his shoulder for at least the next three years and in some areas– for the rest of his life.
I do take issue with Mr. James’ emphasis on rehabilitation. Where will he (and his father) get a less entitled attitude? Maybe they’ll just blame the victim, the system, the personnel that were involved– and learn nothing.
But as to severity of sentence and many long term reminders– some for the rest of his life– I agree with Mr. James. The sentence is more detailed and demanding than it first appeared.
But the main thing in all this is what has been learned?
I still question what the perpetrator learned from the experience. The statements he and his father made seemed like they thought he was being unjustly punished for some innocent fun that was his right. He seems to be suffering from an undiagnosed case of excessive male privilege.
What part of the sentence will help him get his head in a better place? He has to learn to value the safety of women. And their emotional input. I know that is very challenging, hard to navigate, and maybe hard to read— but dealing with an intoxicated, passed out woman is not the answer.
If it’s assured cooperation that he wants, professional sex workers provide that. And working girls can take care of themselves and their needs a lot better than an intoxicated, passed out party drinker.
I’d like the sentence better if it included attitude testing every three months.
I don’t NOT feel sorry for the woman he assaulted. I just now feel sorry for him. He did wrong. He was selfish. And now we have even more damage done by his selfish and demeaning actions– this time to the perpetrator. I refer to the restrictions Mr. James has laid out.
Thank you Mr. James for examining these issues and advancing the conversation.
By Chuck Jagoda • July 28, 2016, 6:56 p.m.
May I begin by saying, that I agree completely with Stanford law professor Michelle Dauber that under California criminal law, the sentencing of Brock Turner was far, far too lenient.
I was brought close to tears by the final three paragraphs of the twelve page letter written by the victim of his crime, and feel heartfelt sympathy and complete solidarity with her.
I cannot argue with the reasoning or logic of Aram James. Nor was I ever a supporter of the lynch mob mentality against Brock Turner or Judge Aaron Persky.
Brock Turner may have to be unbelievably careful, if he is to avoid prison. Given his reported abuse of drugs and alcohol, if the requirements of his probation are not onerously enforced, that is exactly where he belongs, that he may never again harm another woman.
If he is given probation in California, it must be emphasized, that two-thirds of the inmates in the state prison system in this state are there, because of probation or parole violations.
If Brock is to remain completely abstinent of both illicit drugs and alcohol without going into a Twelve Step program, he has an unbelievably miserable three years to which to look forward.
If he is an addict or alcoholic, he has a very difficult choice to make between sobriety and recovery or prison, institutions, and/or death.
And, if so, he is still so young, until his life becomes unlivable and intolerable enough, only then may he become amenable to full rehabilitation and a hopeful and promising future.
May Brock one day understand how his victim has been harmed and has suffered as a consequence of his actions and decisions.
And may the survivor of his heinous crime heal over time, and may she one day come to forgive him, which would come sooner, if he could show any remorse for how she so exquisitely detailed, what had so cruelly been taken from her by Brock that cold, dark night.
By Dennis Upton • August 2, 2016, 4:23 p.m.
I enjoyed reading your article very informative about brock’s case and the judicial system. I also enjoyed the insight into the probation in detail.
By katherine hudgins • September 19, 2016, 9:45 a.m.
Post a comment
Name
Email address
URL
Comment

“The early sophists’ practice of charging money, often employed by rich people, for education and providing wisdom only to those who could pay resulted in the condemnations made by Socrates through Plato in his Dialogues, as well as by Xenophon in his Memorabilia and, somewhat controversially, by Aristotle ….”

“In De Oratore, Cicero blames Plato for separating wisdom and eloquence in the philosopher’s famous attack on the Sophists in Gorgias.”[1] Through works such as these, Sophists were portrayed as “specious” or “deceptive”, hence the modern meaning of the term.”

1. Was Brock Turner received “equal justice under law”? There is obviously a well-orchestrated and well-funded campaign involving people WITHIN the legal establishment to attack the independence of the judiciary and affect the “justice” meted out to Mr. Turner.

Your article is an obvious acknowledgement of the existence of the campaign to tip the scales of justice as it affects the legal consequences for Turner.

Can you assert that Brock Turner has in fact received “equal justice”?

2. Is Michele Landis Dauber qualified to be a Professor of Law and teacher of future attorneys at Stanford University? Michele Dauber has NOT passed the bar exam and is therefore not qualified to “practice law” or to be “an officer of the court”.

Is Michele Dauber’s employment to a professorship at Stanford Law School a sham appointment to support her while she engages in tax-privileged political activism to undermine judicial independence?

All I know is, 25 year old women shouldn’t be hanging out at colleges they don’t attend trying to pick up 19-year-old boys.

And these “Victim Statements” shouldn’t be allowed — especially anonymously. Since she wasn’t there (she was passed out), her statement was based on what she imagined may have happened after being coached by other people who weren’t there.

Calling the voters a “mob” set the tone from the get-go. The voters are supposed to run the country and are supposed to be the highest authority over all the government — above all three branches (legislative, executive, judicial). If the voters want the judge gone, that should be their unchallenged right — arguing that some civil servants are the voice of angels and should have lifetime tenure is insane (lawyers will argue that “everyone deserves a good defense”, but that just cements their hired-gun, “we will say/do anything for money and our jobs” status). It appears the trial verdict is not at issue, only the sentencing — if judges aren’t supposed to have such sentencing latitude, that can be fixed by the legislature.

As Rolling Stone reported in November, “In 2010, Vanity Fair published “The Heiresses and the Cult,” a detailed account of Seagram heiresses Sara and Clare Bronfman’s immersion in NXIVM; the sisters reportedly gave up approximately $150 million of their trust fund to help fund the alleged cult.”
. . .
“On March 14 and April 13, records show, more than a dozen contributions poured into Clinton’s coffers from NXIVM, an executive and group-awareness training organization led by Brooklyn-born Keith Raniere, 47.

Most were from first-time political donors, each giving the $2,300 maximum.

Three of the March and April Clinton pledges came from Raniere’s most high-profile followers: Seagram heiresses Clare and Sara Bronfman, and Pamela Cafritz, daughter of D.C. A-listers Buffy and Bill Cafritz.

Hillary isn’t the only Clinton NXIVM officials are attracted to.

At least three of them – group President Nancy Salzman and the Bronfman sisters – are members of Bill’s charitable organization, the Clinton Global Initiative. Membership is by invitation only and requires at least a $15,000 donation per person for one year. -New York Post

——————————–

Is there any “connection” between the Raniere cult and the Dauber cult?

Even this “Get all the facts before you vote article” gets the facts wrong. There was no direct evidence Turner penetrayed Doe with her fingers when she was unconscious. He said he did that while she was awake. She did not contradict him claiming retrograde amnesia from drinking. The witnesses could not see any detail
He seemingly got convicted of that but is appealing. Clearly the jurors did not take “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” very seriously.

Wow it’s readily apparent who cames to the aid of a comrade. I guess if I had anything to do with the law, I’d stand behind Persky too. They’re just trying to protect their own.
The point being missed is the masses of people upset with the government, law enforcement, and the justice system. This is just one more case too many that have endorsed the cry “enough is enough.”
Did the prosecutor present a solid case? Did the defense bring up enough evidence for his client? Did the jury hear it? How much sexual abuse was there? Regardless the jury heard what both sides presented and that’s what the judge should have taken into consideration when the verdict came in. To the world, the “punishment did not fit the crime.” To me, that is what the problem is all about and it’s about the defendant getting a “free pass.” Regardless of the law being followed by the judge, he had the option of slapping this guys hands a little harder.